>>Thomas
>>
>>I'd have to agree with Fred. What purpose in attacking the French or casting back in history for stuff they did wrong. Most nations did stuff wrong at one time or another. If people want to nurse resentments then the Suez-Sinai episode, Armenians in Turkey, Bay of Pigs, Rainbow Warrior, Bikini Atoll might be added in there as well.
>>
>
>Without knowing the facts well do not depict country names in your samples. Some countries' congress decisions doesn't mean it really happened. Their decisions are based on political pressure and lobbies. Be objective and do what those politicians don't do - read what historicians say. You might only choose from Armenian historicians only, but do read first, especially ones who were right there in the first place.
>Cetin

Cetin;

I found the best way to approach any historical research is to read at least five books written from different authors from different countries on the same event. When you are through with your studies you may come to a conclusion based upon what you have read. One conclusion may be, “Are these authors discussing the same event”? Your conclusion may be as valid or even more so than any of the authors.

A problem with reading or listening to anyone describe an event is bias. Some authors wish to present his/her point of view and will disregard or twist facts. Everything they present has one thing in mind. Prove your point and nothing more.

A large number of important works have been discredited within the academic community after research proved that prejudice and false or unimportant references were used to prove a point.

Tom